Humboldt: Locals react to Cal Fire fee lawsuit

A $150 state fire fee that went out to more than 15,000 Humboldt County residents last month left some residents confused or crying foul. But a lawsuit filed Thursday by a taxpayer group and other plaintiffs throughout California might mean they will get a refund.

Humboldt County Fire Chief's Association President Lon Winburn said he supports the lawsuit "wholeheartedly."

"We agree it's an illegal tax," Winburn said.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association is seeking a declaration about whether the State Responsibility Area fee is valid, as well as refunds for those who both paid the fee and filed a claim.

The fee, made payable to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, is based on how many "habitable structures" are on a property, at a rate of $150 per structure. Residents that already pay a tax to a local fire department receive a $35 discount.

The bill covers fiscal year 2011-2012. In March 2013, bills will start going out for the 2012-2013 fiscal year raising concerns that rural residents could be charged twice in less than one year.

Winburn said it's important people pay the fee -- to avoid interest and a possible lien -- but he said they need to file a protest too, so they are eligible for the potential refund. The tax association said those that protest may be the only ones to get their money back if the fee is ruled illegal.

Specifically, the tax association's fire fee website-- www.firetaxprotest.org -- recommends that landowners pay the bill, write the words "under protest" on the notation line of the check, and then file a petition for redetermination. The website said landowners should make a copy of the check and enclose it with the petition for redetermination, and send it to Fire Prevention Petitions in Suisun City, and the Board of Equalization and Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, both in Sacramento.

Executive Director of the Humboldt Taxpayer's League Cliff Chapman said he wants to ensure county residents know they can take those steps to protest, especially now that the lawsuit has been filed.

Chapman said he's heard from people on fixed incomes that are "really hurting to pay this." He said residents might receive the fee three times in just over a year. In March 2013, bills will start going out for the 2012-2013 fiscal year, and Chapman said residents could receive a third round of fees by next summer.

He's also heard from trailer park owners. It's unfair for every mobile home owner in a tightly packed park to pay the fee, he said.

"It doesn't take (that much money) to protect a mobile home park," Chapman said.

Winburn pointed out inconsistencies he's seen with the fee. His home in Fortuna didn't receive the SRA fee, he said, despite being located 300 feet outside of Fortuna city limits and inside the SRA. The Westhaven Volunteer Fire Department received a fee, but the Hydesville Station did not, despite falling inside the SRA, Winburn said.

Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, said Friday that he too supports the lawsuit. Chesbro said if he is reelected this November, he plans to continue his fight against the fee in the state legislature.

Chesbro said it's clear to him the fee is actually a tax -- which would have required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, not the simple majority it received. He said he made two attempts in the state legislature to repeal the bill, and one to reform it. Both were unsuccessful, he said, because of a looming state budget deficit.

Leginfo.com, the official site for California legislative information maintained by the Legislative Counsel of California, shows that Chesbro was among one of 52 lawmakers in the Assembly voting to pass ABX1 29 -- a trailer bill to the Budget Act of 2011 -- which established the SRA fee in the first place.

The tax association's president told the Associated Press that Gov. Jerry Brown's 2011 bill signing message asked lawmakers to clarify the bill's language. They didn't, and the administration started to collect the fee under the provisions of the original bill.

"I think the legislature and government were on very shaky ground," Chesbro said. "The fee would be more defensible if it was based on fire risk."